Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 25, 2016, at 10:24, Joe Groff via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ok, but to clarify the requirement, *every* file would have to declare the
>> operators it is using at the top of the file. It isn’t enough for them to
>> be declared in some file within the current module. Not having this
>> property breaks the ability to do a quick parse of a file without doing name
>> lookup.
>
> Yeah, that's a tradeoff. I think that requiring non-standard operator use to
> be explicitly declared could be a good thing, though, since I don't think
> that we can realistically expect users to learn or intuitively agree on what
> glyphs are "operator" or "identifier", no matter what character set we design.
I could get behind having to explicitly import operators:
import CoolLib
import operators CoolLib
or
import CoolLib {types functions vars operators}
But having to re-declare every "non-standard" operator for every file really
limits their usefulness, IMHO.
> As long as { } aren't in the operator character set, we should still be able
> to skip function bodies without parsing, so operator use declarations could
> still be order-independent at the top level of declarations. (Whether it's a
> good idea to bury your import declarations in the middle of your other decls
> is another story.)
Oh, is using {} as operators on the table? There's gotta be some interesting
syntax someone could make with those...
- Dave Sweeris_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
